REAL ID In Its Death Throes, Says ACLU
Dr. Eggman points us to Ars Technica for an article on the ACLU's view of the latest loosening and deadline extensions for REAL ID act compliance by the Department of Homeland Security. The rights organization believes that REAL ID is doomed. "The ACLU, which opposes the plan on civil liberties grounds, says that the many changes made since the Act was passed [in 2005] nearly 'negate the original intent of the program.' 'DHS is essentially whittling Real ID down to nothing... all in the name of denying Real ID is a failure,' said ACLU senior legislative counsel Tim Sparapani. 'Real ID is in its death throes, and any signs of life are just last gasps.'"
The rights organization believes that REAL ID is doomed.
Yeah, but they'll just do what they did with CARNIVORE. Wait a few months, change the name, and go about their plans as usual.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
DHS is at pains to point out that REAL ID is not a national identity card program but a set of regulations that direct states how to create their drivers' licenses and state ID cards. The program mandates digital photos, bar-coded information, and more stringent document checks, and it directs all states to link their databases with one another.
So with the bar-coded information we can't wipe the readability of the card with a magnet to stop the assholes at bars, liquors stores, etc from scanning us unnecessarily. Digital photos means that everyone's picture will be merged into the database of information shared with everyone else and "more stringent document checks" means that even more information will be in that same database. When all this information is linked how is it not a national ID database again?
I'm proud of the states that didn't crumble under the pressure of the Federal Government. At least someone out there is willing to tell them to fuck off -- regardless if it was over funding and not privacy implications.
Real ID isn't dying because of privacy concerns. I think (at least in Michigan), it's about the cost for the states. States were ok with the plan until it hit them that it cost them money. Also let's consider the fact the states were asked to basically implement Real ID after they spent tons of money on homeland security.
There are things that I think that the ACLU should fight. This isn't one of them though. RealID will never really go away. What it'll become is a federal requirement for the next incarnation of state DLs having to match a federal data standard. This is generally a good thing. What the really big up roar with the current RealID is that many states have gone their own way with having bar codes or digital information on their DLs, but only that state's systems can read the info off the card, and no one is willing to spend additional money just to conform to a federal standard. The main idea behind RealID is that you could have any of the 50 state's DL and they'd all "just work" in each other's and the federal computer system. Making "just work" would require lots of effort and money though.
Let's be honest there is no additional privacy problems with RealID. If you are in a position to be stopped and asked for State or Federal ID by a state or federal government official for government services, then you are either going to provide that information in a verbal or written form to those federal, state, or city officials or you won't be receiving that government service that you wanted. If you wanted to access a "controlled access area", then you could be "detained" while those government officials make sure that you aren't on any most wanted list, have outstanding warrants or on any special watch for lists.
If the government is hunting for you, they know your name and last known address. RealID was supposed to make it trivial to swipe a DL through a reader so all that DL info could be auto populated rather than manually entered. This is supposed to be a the huge privacy concern needing ACLU attention?
It's sometimes easy to forget about the work that organizations such as the ACLU do. I doubt most citizens are even aware of the kind of things that the ACLU actively fights for.
Organizations like these should be applauded for their work. We need more people willing to do this kind of thing.
Well, I can't speak for the GP, but assuming you reside in the United States, have you ever been in an auto accident with an individual who is not a legal resident?
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
Real ID will not be stopped and it is yet another infringement on our rights by the gov't. Add it to the ever-growing list of violations:
They violate the 1st Amendment by opening mail, caging demonstrators and banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon.
They violate the 2nd Amendment by confiscating guns during Katrina.
They violate the 4th Amendment by conducting warrant-less wiretaps.
They violate the 5th and 6th Amendment by suspending habeas corpus.
They violate the 8th Amendment by torturing.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting 2 illegal wars based on lies and on behalf of a foriegn gov't.
Support Dr. Ron Paul (who raised a record $4 million yesterday) and save this great country.
Credit signatures aren't for identification; you're saying you agree to the contract of the card (when you sign the card) and that you won't charge back the purchase (when you sign the receipt). That's a very general view, but you can do more research.
Why wouldn't you want the 'illegals' to be licensed and insured if they are going to drive anyway?
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
That all of the 9/11 terrorists had valid ID's
Granted, there might be some benefits to a unified ID across the 50 states, but combating terrorism isn't one of them. Instead, we should be asking if the other so-called benefits are worth the privacy invation and expansion of the Federal government that this program would entail.
Exactly why are my Federal tax dollars being used for this sort of thing, when it seems perfectly clear that my state government is already perfectly capable of issuing ID? The implications that someone is a terrorist if they can't produce the "satisfactory" identification document is a Constitutional problem, not a law enforcement issue.
Besides, what would an elderly father in law - who can't legally drive - do? Should he really be denied seeing his daughter married because he can't produce the ID to board a plane? This bill assumes (incorrectly) that everyone has an ID. That's not the way it's supposed to work.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
More anarchy, crime, terrorism, fear... or stronger government.
...but that's for political theorists, not technical writers.
Our government perpetrates more anarchy, crime, terrorism, and fear than any "enemy combatants."
No, its not for political theorists. It is for the governed to decide how they will be governed. You don't need a degree in Political Science to know the difference between right and wrong.
Better still, when the illegals show up to claim their latest 'benefit' of being in this country (their shiny new driver's license) grab 'em and ship 'em home. For Pete's sake, why call them illegals if we're not going to treat them as such?
Because the driver's license has been a de-facto state ID since forever, and changing that would upset a lot of social convenience. It seems like a lot of anguish so that some politicians can passive-aggressively avoid dealing with the immigration debate. The logical and correct solution is to stop avoiding the immigration debate. It's stupid on its face to everyone who doesn't have an agenda to give state IDs to people who are not here legally.
In British Columbia, the government runs the auto insurance. You can't register a vehicle (i.e. get a license plate) without insurance. Driving without insurance is illegal. Thus, almost everybody has insurance. This also makes "underinsured motorist" coverage dirt cheap, around $25/year, which gives you full coverage whether or not "the other guy" has any insurance or not.
I'm not saying our system is perfect, but it certainly would eliminate the problem you have described.
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
I'm sure that, on paper, that's exactly how it works here (Texas). It's just a matter of apathetic enforcement of the law. If you really wanted to be sure that no one can get on the road uninsured unless they steal a car, then police would have to show up the moment I pass the renewal deadline for my insurance policy without replacing it or transferring ownership of the car. Needless to say, this doesn't happen. I've seen ads where the police offer temporary "warrant amnesty", giving you a chance to turn yourself in for outstanding warrants. Now, if they have that big a problem following up on warrants (where there's actually a judcial order for arrest), what are the odds they're so vigilant about uninsured drivers?
And then of course, both B/C and Texas do nothing about the possibility that someone will buy a car (and they check you for insurance on the secondary market, right?) and then share it with illegals.
It's all nice and feel-good that uninsured driving is illegal, but all that means is more hassle for people who obey the law. Criminals and illegals can effectively evade it until an accident.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
The Feds want a 1984-style system of ID for citizens, but will do almost nothing about the flood of illegals coming across the Southern border.
The states are refusing to comply on the ID card, and are enforcing border controls.
This is a fascinating inversion of control.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
The key word is ILLEGAL. If I were to walk into the DMV carrying a huge baggie of crack, which is illegal, I'd most likely be leaving in handcuffs. So why can an illegal walk into the DMV with documents basically proving he's a non-citizen and expect to be treated any differently?
Is this a news report or a trailer for a motion picture?
A report commissioned the National Governor's Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators puts the cost to the states at around $11 billion. The DHS puts the total cost at $23 billion over the next 10 years, of which $14 billion will be picked up by the states.
It is official; ACLU now confirms: RealID is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered RealID community when DOJ confirmed that RealID market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all state government ID programs. Coming close on the heels of a recent Homeland Security survey which plainly states that RealID has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. RealID is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Immigration and Customs comprehensive identification test.
You don't need to be a Brownie to predict RealID's future. The hand writing is on the wall: RealID faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for RealID because RealID is dying. Things are looking very bad for RealID. As many of us are already aware, RealID continues to lose market share. Fake passports and imitations flow like a river of blood.
The Department of Justice is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its DC managing political stooges. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time DOJ water-carriers Monica Goodling and Alberto Gonzales only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: RealID is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
RealID leader Mike Chertoff states that there are 100 states which plan to use RealID. How many users of RealID are there? Let's see. The number of RealID versus other ID posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 100/5 = 20 RealID users. RealID posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of other ID posts. Therefore there are about 10 users of RealID. A recent article put RealID at about 80 percent of the overall ID market. Therefore there is only one actual RealID user. This is consistent with the number of RealID Usenet posts.
All major surveys show that RealID proponents have steadily declined in market share. RealID is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If RealID is to survive at all it will be among National Security Theatre dilettante dabblers. RealID continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save RealID from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, RealID is dead.
Fact: RealID is dying
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
Because you are supposed to be a citizen in "the land of the free" ? How ironic, built on immigration, now you are doing our best to forget your countrys glorios past and it's ideas.
Toilet cleaner.
laborer for a construction sub-contractor.
Exactly how many Americans do you know that either really want to work in one of those three jobs, or would be willing to pay $100/day for them?
Unlimited migration (NOT immigration -- these people don't want to be citizens!) is a fundamental part of a free market. If the entire population of Mexico wants to come and do low-level service jobs in the United States, they should just need to tell the Departments of State & Homeland Security and the IRS.
Habeus doesn't apply to Gitmo. Period.
Jose Padilla wasn't captured in Afghanistan, but he was arrested in Chicago, IL. Nor was he sent to Gitmo, but he was held incommunicado in the USA. As were others. Oh, I see you mention him. There's also Hamdi who though captured in Afghanistan is a US citizen. And the USSC ruled he could not be deprived of Habeas Corpus.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If given the chance next year I'll vote for Ron Paul again, I first voted for him for President in 1988.
I probably will as well, though as I said I'm not as sanguine about all his policy positions. For me, he is more like the Federal "Reset Button", which I think this government could use (and is overdue for). If it turns out I have to pick as usual between a democratic statist and a republican statist in the final election, I will take the liberal statism in a heartbeat; at least they don't want to tell me what God to worship and seem to at least fleetingly care about people who nobody else cares about. Ron Paul right now is the only Republican I would vote for, and Clinton is the only Democrat I would not vote for, in a pinch. Things are that bad.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)